The following two letters to the editor (LTE) of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette newspaper respond to an opinion piece published in the T&G on Sept. 14 that supports expansion of natural gas pipeline capacity into New England. The authors of these LTEs are members of 350 Central Mass.

 

Natural Gas Is Not the Solution to Mass Power Needs

The Opinion “Natural Gas Helps Power State’s Economy” in the 9/14/25 T&G is extremely thorough in its references on the subject of natural gas (methane) as a source of generating electricity to the state.

 

Rather than commenting on the desirability of data centers built for AI, it is important to focus on the mentioned “unfortunate threat to grid strength and dependability” due to “delays, shutdowns and revoked approvals of offshore wind projects that would have supplied power to well over 1.5 million Massachusetts businesses and homes.”

 

What the writer is saying is that due to the federal government canceling offshore wind projects this year, the solution to increased electricity requirements is the expansion of the Algonquin Pipeline, the completion of the Constitution Pipeline, and the development of Project Maple (more gas lines). One canceled offshore wind project, Revolution Wind, was 80% complete and scheduled to provide electricity throughout New England in 2026.

 

It makes one wonder why, if New England electricity use “will increase 11% in the next decade,” would the federal government be canceling offshore wind projects a source of electricity? The answer is clear: the beneficiary of the canceled wind projects is the natural gas industry. The natural gas utilities are paid a guaranteed rate of return by their customers (me and you) on pipeline infrastructure projects for decades.

 

Let’s not be fooled by this Opinion which clearly benefits the natural gas industry.

 

Denis Mahoney

Holden, MA

 

More Pipelines, More Emissions

Enlarging gas pipeline capacity into New England would do little to get more gas into New England or lower heating, cooking and electricity costs for us consumers.

 

The Constitution pipeline, for example, referred to in the Telegram opinion piece of Sept. 14, would terminate near Albany, New York, where it would connect to pipes that already carry gas into New England. But because the existing pipelines inside New England are relatively small, the arrangement creates a severe bottleneck before gas even gets to us.

 

In 2023, Massachusetts regulators laid out plans for reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. A major piece of this plan is shifting from gas to electricity for cooking and to devices like high-efficiency electric heat pumps for both heating and cooling homes and businesses. This approach addresses New England’s growing appetite for energy and attendant price and reliability worries by simply burning less gas: leveraging a portfolio of options that include solar, offshore wind, battery storage, energy efficiency and demand-response programs.

 

These resources create “virtual power plants” — collections of geographically distributed resources that together help meet consumer demand, supply clean power to the electric grid, avoid often severe gas price spikes, and can be built more quickly and less expensively than new fossil fuel infrastructure. And more pipelines would lead to more harmful emissions that in turn increase the risks to the health of all living things.

 

Ken McDonnell

Holden, MA

​